He explains away his actions as an act of patriotism. He acknowledges the laws were broken and lives were endangered in order to accomplish his goals, but he acted anyway out of love for country. That sounds like similar logic that could be used to explain a lot of the action he revealed.
We are being forced to choose between realities. Either his action is a noble one born of patriotism, or those that he revealed are.
Both sides are claiming to be right, noble and patriotic, and both sides see themselves as acting appropriately.
The question is which reality do we want to be true? which side do we want to be associated with and to support?
Pick your side, and see where that decision takes you.
There are no objective realities here. Just a personal decision regarding the reality we wish to support, encourage and stand with.
Of course, in this case you have patriotism used as a prop for furthering secret government and corporate objectives, or patriotism as a means to expose corruption and the authorized murder of civilians in a post-WWII world replete with the United Nations.
You be the judge.